warrant VS Codename One

Warrant — Hosted enterprise-grade authorization and access control service for your apps. The free tier includes 1 million monthly API requests and 1,000 authz rules.

The specific challenge with authz in the app layer is that different apps can have different access models with varying complexity, especially the more granular you get (e.g. implementing fine grained access to specific objects/resources - like Google Docs).

Personally, I think a rebac (relationship/graph based) approach works best for apps because permissions in applications are mostly relational and/or hierarchical (levels of groups). There are authz systems out there such as Warrant https://warrant.dev/ (I'm a founder) in which you can define a custom access model as a schema and enforce it in your app.

Let's use warrant.dev as an example. The system provides a set of REST APIs for you to define object types and access policies (called warrants). The general process is first to create object types using HTTP POST:

https://warrant.dev/ (Provider) Relatively new authZ provider, they have a dashboard where you can manage your rules in a central location and then use them from multiple languages via their SDKs, even on the client to perform UI checks. Rules can also be managed programmatically via SDK.

I would describe this debate more as Policy-as-Data (Zanzibar) vs Policy-as-Code (OPA et al).

In Zanzibar, all of the information required to make an authorization decision (namespaces, relationship tuples, etc.) is stored in Zanzibar, and the decision engine resolves access checks based on this data. This data can be scaled horizontally (and consistently) as needed for an application’s needs. This makes Zanzibar a centralized, unified solution for all of an application’s authorization needs. I’ve found this approach more purpose built / well suited for application authorization.

With OPA and other policy engines, the data required for performing access checks lives somewhere else (maybe the application’s database) and must be separately queried and included as part of the authorization check because OPA et al. are stateless decision engines. This makes it such that you need to piece together data from different sources in order to get your final decision, which IMO is something most developers don’t want to deal with.

On the flip side, Zanzibar’s “namespaces” are a very simple policy layer not well suited to querying against data outside of Zanzibar’s scope (e.g. geolocation, time, etc). For scenarios like this, a full fledged policy-as-code solution is great. However, it should be noted that some open source Zanzibar implementations like Warrant[1] and SpiceDB[2] (mentioned in the article) also offer a policy-as-code layer on top of Zanzibar’s graph-based/ReBAC approach to tackle these scenarios.

Disclaimer, I’m one of the founders of Warrant.

[1] https://github.com/warrant-dev/warrant

[2] https://github.com/authzed/spicedb

Hey HN, I recently shared my thoughts on why Google Zanzibar is a great solution for implementing authorization[1] and why we decided to build Warrant’s core authz service using key concepts from the Zanzibar paper. As I mentioned in the post, we recently open sourced the authz service powering our managed cloud service, Warrant Cloud[2], so I thought I’d share it with everyone here. Cheers!

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36470943

[2] https://warrant.dev/

More than two years after choosing to build Warrant atop Zanzibar’s core principles, we’re extremely happy with our decision. Doing so gave us a solid technical foundation on which to tackle the various complex authorization challenges companies face today. As we continue to encounter new scenarios and use cases, we’ll keep iterating on Warrant to ensure it’s the most capable authorization service. To share what we learn and what we build with the developer community, we recently open-sourced the core authorization engine that powers our fully managed authorization platform, Warrant Cloud. If you’re interested in authorization (or Zanzibar), check it out and give it a star!

codenameone.com — Open source, cross-platform, mobile app development toolchain for Java/Kotlin developers. Free for commercial use with an unlimited number of projects

This was resolved in this issue: https://github.com/codenameone/CodenameOne/issues/3706

Naturally depends on the use case, yet they work good enough to be in business for 20 years.

https://www.ptc.com/en/products/developer-tools/perc

https://www.aicas.com/wp/products-services/jamaicavm-tools/

https://www.codenameone.com/

Android 5 & 6 (only changed back into JIT/AOT due to long compile times), https://www.infoq.com/news/2014/07/art-runtime/

Unfortunely the best well known, Excelsior JET, is no longer in business, most likely due to GraalVM and OpenJ9 being available as free beer, while PTC, Aicas Codename One are safe in their domains.

There is also RoboVM (https://github.com/MobiVM/robovm) as free beer, however it actually started as a commercial product, and the acquisition from Xamarin kind of stagnated it (naturally).

At Codename One, we were using App Engine when our daily billing suddenly skyrocketed from a few dollars to hundreds. The potential cost was so high it threatened to bankrupt us within a month. Despite our best efforts, including educated guesses and fixing everything we could, we were never able to pinpoint the specific bug. Instead, we had to solve the problem through brute force.

We don't use GraalVM since our project was developed prior to its existence and we aimed for deeper native integration than it can offer: https://github.com/codenameone/CodenameOne

XMLVM, Codename One and iSpectrum (cross compile Java code from an Android app or creating one from scratch

I suggest filing an RFE in the issue tracker.

Thanks. It's always good to get another reminder. Yes, it was reported. u/shannah78 is working on this but we have time until November.

please check this issue https://github.com/codenameone/CodenameOne/issues/3686

We use ParparVM which we wrote. It compiles a subset of Java 8 (sort of) to native by translating the bytecode to C and passing that through XCode. The reason we took this path and not the path of "direct to native", is that it allows for future compatibility.